My comments to DCNH

My comments to DCNH

These are my comments on DCNH based on 8 years of observations. I am mainly including things that I have thought myself, but in some places I repeat what Gulenko says in his DCNH articles in order to give my comments.

Please remember:

-I am NOT an expert on the theory of DCNH. I just really, really like observing, for a looong time. I know that the theory works and that it is important.

-Some of the things I write might be badly formulated or hard to relate to. But I still want to pour it all out like a bucket of cold water, because maybe someone has had similar experiences. I don't even know how popular DCNH is in this forum right now.

- I didn't want to mention any main socionis typings, because it always leads to arguments with forum users. But I still had to mention a few.

What is DCNH?

DCNH is not just referring to shallow traits. "I am dominant person so I have to be the dominant subtype". Rather, DCNH refers to the phenomenon of immediate awareness. If we say that the main type function is on the "inside" of a person then DCNH is on the "outside".

DCNH is often easier to observe than the main type.

Benefits of DCNH

Basically 4 things imo:

- Fills a huge gap in the understanding of compatibility
- Makes typing easier.
- Better understanding of how humans are specialized
- Avoid common mistypings: H mistyped as IP main type, D mistyped as EJ main type etc.

On compatibility

DCNH is very important when choosing a partner. Most marriages are between D&N or H&C "Subtype duality". People just instinctively pick the best match.

Best matches: "subtype duality": D&N or H&C (as the theory says)
Also quite common: H&N or D&C or same subtype
Less common: D&H or C&N

DCNH is also sometimes the reason why we end up with the wrong partner. You might have the correct DCNH-compatibility with a person, but wrong main type combination. It can lead to attraction, and you start dating, but still something feels wrong (If your partner is your supervisor, for example). This becomes even more evident if you also have good enneagram-compatibility.

There is this classical question why charming and vibrant women chose boring men. Now we know, almost every time you see such couple it is a case of Dominant woman + Normalizing man. It can of course also be the other way around.

Subtype duality creates the feeling that the bond gets tighter when both are pulling in their own direction. The N doesn't have to be outgoing because the more intraverted he is, the more D will connect to him. On the other hand, the N stabelizes the D. The feeling can be compared to dancing.

Observing couples in real life is one of the best ways to learn DCNH. The fact that most married couples are DCNH-matches makes it easy to find a point of reference to start typing from. Most couples you see on the street are D+N.

DCNH is probably the reason for the saying "opposites attract", NOT the main socionics compatibility. That's because DCNH is easier to observe, even for those who know nothing about it.

If you want to use Socionics for match-making among friends you should also control the subtype so you can match D with N and H with C. It's simply a fact that these combination are the best. If you can't do that you could try matching N with H and D with C, or you could go for the same subtype, but you better avoid H&D and C&N.

Dominant
Some people are obvious Dominants, like Barrack Obama or Donald Trump, or most talkshow-hosts. But you don't have to be dominant as a person just because you are the Dominant subtype. Sometimes they seem introverted or shy. The main thing is that they occupy the D functions. Very attached to the environment and people. There is a sense of dynamism.

Sometimes a relaxed D will seem like a H, because of the connectivity-dichotomy.

D has the ability of getting attention to themselves by just being in a room. They are the most present. I think this is one of the secrets of leadership. By seeming so present they get the attention of others and they become the natural leaders. D:s often lead, and they do it naturally, so you almost don't notice it, even when they are bad at it on the intellectual side.

D is obviously the best subtype when it comes to surviving in society and work.

The random D you meet will be a normal, outgoing, social person. That's the impression. The name "Dominant" should be understood in relation to the other subtypes, not as a absolute description.

Creative
These can be hard to type (by main type)
It just feels so obvious that the H is their best partner. C behaves often in a random way. Can be sensitive. Can be aware of things that others don't see.
In extreme cases the C can be criminal or borderline criminal. One young C-SEI woman went to bars "to provoke people into fights".

C seems to express everything. If they have psychological problems these will be expressed too. But being C is not the same as having ADHD.

Normalizing

The N needs a steady job or a community where they can be productive. If they are badly socialized they can become totally lost, because they aren't that good at working for themselves. They can work alone, but there is a need for a social context, that someone (a boss etc.) is expecting someting.

N can build up a tremendous bank of knowledge (Noam Chomsky, N-LII)

Some N:s have problems in their social life, dating etc. The trick is to find D:s and then just be oneself around them.

N is very common. Most people you meet on the street are usually N or D

Harmonizing

Can be difficult to figure out as a person. They seem to make an effort to follow along or be nice, and they are good at this (almost too good), but sometimes their own uncomfortability shines through. Sometimes the H seems to have a feeling of superiority. Use of functions seems to be "spread out".

The H person can sometimes require more time to develop into an adult. On the other hand, their flexibility sometimes compensates for this. In those cases they can be good at taking on new challanges and responsibilities.

H is a good subtype when there is a need for escapism, to compensate for unlived life. Old people seem to gravitate towards H. (This could be an exaggeration.)

Look at the eyes!

The connecting/ignoring dichotomy can be seen in the eyes. D and H subtypes have more sensitive, soft, dynamic eyes. C and N eyes seem more static, dry, insensitive. Hard to put this into words, though. This is one of the reasons why I sometimes confuse N/C or H/D at first glance.

Harmonizing and Creative and Art

H and C are over-represented among artists. You also find D artists but not so many N.

DCNH and main type functions

When DCNH talks about strengthened function it means regardless of the position in model A. It's like a shallow, expressive use of the information. That's why it doesn't really mean anything to ask how for example a H-LIE can have developed Si, since it is not primarily connected to position in model A. However...

...there is this interesting connection between subtype and main type function. There is not much information on it but it is pretty obvious that it exists. I goes like this:

For example: C-SLE has a strong emphasis on creative Ti (but also the randomness of the creative function). D-ESI has a strong emphasis on base Fi

I seems quite natural that the D as the most dominant also has strong base function. Or that C uses creative function alot. But it is a mystery why this is so. I think that the answer is that the subtypes have developed through a real need for specialized work or action. Because dominance/leading works best if you are not only highly aware of Fe, Te but at the same time also go into base function mode, this became a fixed mode of being.

This emphasis on different functions sometimes creates the impression that the person is another type. Especially Normalizers can seem like their super-ego type. N-ESI emulates LII, and N-SEI emulates ILI etc. In the case of normalizing this usually is seen at work. When relaxing the main type shows itself again.

This gets stronger the stronger the need for adaption is in the person. ESI can benefit very much from "being LII" in work and studies.

This tendency is probably the weakest in H. The other three are easier to observe.

Example of D-SEI. Charming and laughing. Telling a random story, while picking up the phone to call some friends to join her for sushi. At the same time an underlaying strong connection to impressions around her, ever-changing. "Oh look at my hands, are they the same color?". Constant connection to impression not just as an outer fact but as occupying a psychic space.

By observing this over time one can clearly see that DCNH functions are a different thing than the main type functions. The main type functions (for example Si in SEI) seem to be spinning "under the hood" whereas the DCNH functions are on the surface (for example Fe&Te in D). This way mistypings can be avoided.

8 subtypes

Just taking DCNH one step further, but not always possible to make the distinction, because they are "blurred".

Romantic attraction gets more intense if there also is a match on 8-subtype level. Te-Dominant matches not just with any Normalizer, but specifically with Fi-Normalizer. One could even claim that Fi-Normalizer + Fe-Dominant are slightly incompatible, and so on.

Subtype change

This is a difficult subject. Gulenko says it's possible, and it probably is. The challange is to bring about a permanent change in subtype. Temporary shallow change is easier and is experiences when we work intensively in a new situation that requires a totally new approach. One could also ask oneself whether it is desirable to change subtype at all, because it's easier to continue working in the same way as before.

I'm not so sure how it would happen but it has been said that it probably requires both inner and outer work. It might be connected to life circumstances that we cannot control very much.

I don't have many examples but here are some:

- The king of Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf, is probably an C-ESI who has gravitated towards N-ESI, which he is today. One can see this in old videos of him, where he is younger and also from knowing something about his life. His wife is Harmonizing.

- Steve Jobs, C-LIE, who seemes more like D at the end of his life. Or does he? Maybe there was a slight tendency towards D as a result of his position in Apple. I think Gulenko has mention Jobs as an example somewhere.

- Carl Jung, C-LII, but at the end of his life, from when we have videos of him, he actually seems like all subtypes. He is a rare case, actually he is a bad example of DCNH because of his unusually high level of integration.

Subtype change seems to happen towards adjacent subtypes. C can change to N or D etc. They seem to be close to one another. I don't know the theory behind this.

The subtype of the person you are with at the moment can also influence you so you start gravitating slightly into the direction of the dual subtype of that person.

Love this post! There is still some unanswered questions about this theory. It says that there must be a D, when that place is taken someone take the C and after that people are divided in N and H. So, can I be D in one group and H in an other? Its not static like Socionics?

Love this post! There is still some unanswered questions about this theory. It says that there must be a D, when that place is taken someone take the C and after that people are divided in N and H. So, can I be D in one group and H in an other? Its not static like Socionics?

No, it's not like that. The subtype is static. I think Gulenko studies subtypes in groups to see how it affects group roles.

Subtype change is very rare. If you are learning DCNH I would advice to forget about it for the time being.

The subtypes are basically a parallell type that everybody has. If you watch videos of the people I listed then I think it can become clear what they look like.

DCNH is really fun to observe.When you learn to identify them a whole new world opens. This is not just theoretical stuff. The phenomenon is very real.

No, it's not like that. The subtype is static. I think Gulenko studies subtypes in groups to see how it affects group roles.

Subtype change is very rare. If you are learning DCNH I would advice to forget about it for the time being.

The subtypes are basically a parallell type that everybody has. If you watch videos of the people I listed then I think it can become clear what they look like.

DCNH is really fun to observe.When you learn to identify them a whole new world opens. This is not just theoretical stuff. The phenomenon is very real.

I read that in some article about DCNH a while ago, cant find it at the moment. But it said that depending on situation a person can osculate between two opposite subtype, for example D and N or C and H.

I read that in some article about DCNH a while ago, cant find it at the moment. But it said that depending on situation a person can osculate between two opposite subtype, for example D and N or C and H.

Yes, but that's just a shallow change. We all obviously change a little depending on the situation. If I am with an extremely quiet person I might be a little more extraverted because that "space" is "vacant" so to speak. Maybe mimic another subtype.

But the basic subtype stays the same. It's pretty rigid. That's our base line that we fall back to. Do you know your subtype?

Yes, but that's just a shallow change. We all obviously change a little depending on the situation. If I am with an extremely quiet person I might be a little more extraverted because that "space" is "vacant" so to speak. Maybe mimic another subtype.

But the basic subtype stays the same. It's pretty rigid. That's our base line that we fall back to. Do you know your subtype?

I don't understand how this makes sense with an IP type.
A D-IEI, will focus more outside the normal bell curve on Fe and less on Te. But, this also means that they pay more attention to Fe usage in conjunction with Ni. Their Fe is stronger and their Ni is less developed, than the stereotypical archtype IEI. So how in the world do they fit in with Base function emphasis?
I don't think that heuristic is valid.

Edit - im going to expand a bit on that same point using different temperaments. Ill use beta.
EIE - Rational, Dynamic
D fits. Fe is the base function. Te would not ever be the accentuated function on a dominant Fe base.
C somewhat fits. If its a demonstrative accentuation (Ne), it fits normal subtype theory that the creative subtype enhances creative, role, Suggestive, and demonstrative. And because demonstrative is shown and only innocently mocked, I can see how they would take on a EP-like appearance. However if its a HA accentuation(Se), normal subtype theory posits that creative function would be less apparent than the archtype norm, as Base, PolR, HA, and ignoring are bolstered in the Base subtype.
N - Ti suggestive, goes in line with creative accentuation, which bolsters Role. Fi Ignoring goes in line with base, which hinders role.
H - Si is their Polr, so it links perfect, however, an unvalued weak function, is unlikely to be accentuated over the creative as they directly contradict each other in worldview. Ni accentuation will bolster creative, role, suggestive and demonstrative. Furthermore, an Ni accentuation will make an EIE more concerned with creating change, as thats what the creative normally does. Whereas someones PolR is basically the worst function at that. I dont see how creative could fit with polR even in essence, nonetheless letter.

Tldr - D, yes. C & N 50/50. H, in theory I can see it but in reality a hard no.

SLE - static, irrational.
D - Fe HA & Te demonstrative. Both equally plausible accentuations. Fe HA falls in line with base accentuation and a more dominant personality. Te however falls in line with creative subtype at the expense of base.
C - Se is the base function. Will boost their base function at the expense of the creative. Ne accentuation at the expense of Base is unlikely. Creative would be bolstered in this unlikely scenario of Role over base, but the heavy accentuation on the Role is more accurately described as Role boost and creative gets a boost as a byproduct of that. But the real significant difference is in the role. Not the creative.
N - creative and Polr. Polr is a hard no for accentuation(at the expense of creative). Creative boosts role and that fits, but for the same reasons as C, this is more accurately explained as a creative focus with Role boost as a byproduct.
H - Suggestive and Ignoring. Ignoring fits PolR boost, Suggestive would decrease Polr activity. However an Ignoring has a funny path. Information metabolized by the ignoring function gets dissassembled from that form (Si here), and put into Terms of the base. Ignoring directly feeds base. So the effective pronounced effect would be a Base function increase which would make them look more EP and similar to a C subtype.

Tldr - D, 50/50. C, doesnt make sense. N - 50/50, but I disagree with denoting Role over creative as the apparent change in the situation that works. H - 50/50, but the side that works is a huge change to base, compared to a moderate change in PolR

IEI - dynamic irrational.
D - Creative and PolR. Creative boost will not cause a boost in base. PolR accentuation will, but it is extremely unlikely for someone to accentuate their PolR in particular, as its opposite their world view. However, it would indeed make someone heavily indulged in their base because of their inadequacy transmuting that energy through the creative. Oddly enough, this would make this person appear and behave way less dominant as their ability to impart an impact is the least developed of any IEI subtype. This is antithetical to the Dominant definition.
C - Suggestive and ignoring - Suggestive would bolster the creative, and would create a more EP like appearance. This 100% works. Ignoring would hinder the creative, and coupled with the funneling of info to base, further give the base a boost. If anything, C ignoring accentuation in an IP would make a markedly more Ego block focused individual as the extra base energy would cause a subsequent boost to both base and creative activity. But the base will shine brighter than the creative. Its still a 50/50 match, but this is one of the more interesting matchups ive seen thus far.
N - HA and Demonstrative - Demonstrative Fi will cause a Role boost. And though Dem is the real marked improvement, I can see how Role Si, would appear much more focused considering the demonstrative attitude is show it, dont talk it. Fi dem is heavily about doing right by people, and Si role is basically politeness (the good side of si role). HA accentuation however is a hard no on role boost.
H - base and role. Ni accentuation will boost PolR. But trust me, that Te is still super undeveloped and the Ni is so over developed (an IEI H-Ni will also be a base subtype after all) with a double accentuation on the base that calling it anything but a boost to the base function is laughable. Si accentuation, will tandem with creative boost, which will hinder PolR. Involve an IEI-Fe in an activity that primarily focuses on their Polr and youll see just how ignored their PolR is.

Tldr - D, 0%. C, 50/50, but interestingly it works more than it doesnt, logically. N - 50/50. H - 50/50, but more of a doesnt work than it does, fits more in line with Base Boost.

Skipping LSI. For now. Or forever.

Last edited by Pookie; 05-31-2017 at 01:49 AM.

Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

I think I'm either N or H but not sure which. Probably N if that's more statistically likely. I seem to get along better and more attracted to C's though. But I have that heavy emphasis on my Fi role.

Originally Posted by Tallmo

Dominant
Some people are obvious Dominants, like Barrack Obama or Donald Trump, or most talkshow-hosts. But you don't have to be dominant as a person just because you are the Dominant subtype. Sometimes they seem introverted or shy. The main thing is that they occupy the D functions. Very attached to the environment and people. There is a sense of dynamism.

Sometimes a relaxed D will seem like a H, because of the connectivity-dichotomy.

D has the ability of getting attention to themselves by just being in a room. They are the most present. I think this is one of the secrets of leadership. By seeming so present they get the attention of others and they become the natural leaders. D:s often lead, and they do it naturally, so you almost don't notice it, even when they are bad at it on the intellectual side.

D is obviously the best subtype when it comes to surviving in society and work.

The random D you meet will be a normal, outgoing, social person. That's the impression. The name "Dominant" should be understood in relation to the other subtypes, not as a absolute description.

This is definitely not me although I wish it was.

Originally Posted by Tallmo

Creative
These can be hard to type (by main type)
It just feels so obvious that the H is their best partner. C behaves often in a random way. Can be sensitive. Can be aware of things that others don't see.
In extreme cases the C can be criminal or borderline criminal. One young C-SEI woman went to bars "to provoke people into fights".

C seems to express everything. If they have psychological problems these will be expressed too. But being C is not the same as having ADHD.

Probably not me either. I relate to the sensitivity and sometimes being aware of things that others don't see. Otherwise, this does not fit me. I'm too predictable and rule bound.

Originally Posted by Tallmo

Normalizing

The N needs a steady job or a community where they can be productive. If they are badly socialized they can become totally lost, because they aren't that good at working for themselves. They can work alone, but there is a need for a social context, that someone (a boss etc.) is expecting something.

N can build up a tremendous bank of knowledge (Noam Chomsky, N-LII)

Some N:s have problems in their social life, dating etc. The trick is to find D:s and then just be oneself around them.

N is very common. Most people you meet on the street are usually N or D

This mostly fits me. I think I can work for myself though, but I'm probably more productive if I am working under a set of external expectations. Otherwise I might tend towards laziness and inaction.

Originally Posted by Tallmo

Harmonizing

Can be difficult to figure out as a person. They seem to make an effort to follow along or be nice, and they are good at this (almost too good), but sometimes their own uncomfortability shines through. Sometimes the H seems to have a feeling of superiority. Use of functions seems to be "spread out".

The H person can sometimes require more time to develop into an adult. On the other hand, their flexibility sometimes compensates for this. In those cases they can be good at taking on new challanges and responsibilities.

H is a good subtype when there is a need for escapism, to compensate for unlived life. Old people seem to gravitate towards H. (This could be an exaggeration.)

Most of this fits me.

Originally Posted by Tallmo

Look at the eyes!

The connecting/ignoring dichotomy can be seen in the eyes. D and H subtypes have more sensitive, soft, dynamic eyes. C and N eyes seem more static, dry, insensitive. Hard to put this into words, though. This is one of the reasons why I sometimes confuse N/C or H/D at first glance.

I'm not sure on this one. Sensitive and soft but maybe more static? I've been told by some they are more expressive though. So IDK.

Originally Posted by Tallmo

Harmonizing and Creative and Art

H and C are over-represented among artists. You also find D artists but not so many N.

I'm drawn to art, but definitely not the artistically creative type.

Originally Posted by Tallmo

DCNH and main type functions

When DCNH talks about strengthened function it means regardless of the position in model A. It's like a shallow, expressive use of the information. That's why it doesn't really mean anything to ask how for example a H-LIE can have developed Si, since it is not primarily connected to position in model A. However...

...there is this interesting connection between subtype and main type function. There is not much information on it but it is pretty obvious that it exists. I goes like this:

I know that I'm not dominant. If it is must then I'll use off the wall argumentation. Yes, I'm a person with variety of different modes. Interest drives me. Could be creative normalizing mix.

BTW I also think that ADHD is not psychological problem at all but it can cause those kind of problems especially if environment demands total absense of those traits.

Last edited by Troll Nr 007; 05-31-2017 at 11:28 AM.

The meaning of LIFE:
To continuously use and develop your own predisposed functionality that makes you content. However:
Societal "ecological niche" generates incompatibilities when we think about individual and his/her meaning. What this means is that life itself can not become fulfilled and in the best cases to approach meaning infinitesimally close tends to happens very seldom. As such we can not reach for fulfillment but we need to become mesmerized by the majority with the majority. Source comes from the illusion generated by the happy outliers. If the individual belongs to one of these groups he/she can be considered as mentally healthy most of the time.Head type as in being truly head type and probably 7>5. Too divergent, scattered and expressive for typical 5 and that is the preferred way although long term focus usually helps.

I don't understand how this makes sense with an IP type.
A D-IEI, will focus more outside the normal bell curve on Fe and less on Te. But, this also means that they pay more attention to Fe usage in conjunction with Ni. Their Fe is stronger and their Ni is less developed, than the stereotypical archtype IEI. So how in the world do they fit in with Base function emphasis?
I don't think that heuristic is valid.

The DCNH functions and main socionics functions are different things. That's why. As I said the DCNH functions appear more "shallow". This phenomenon goes through all types. The D subtype (Fe,Te DCNH-functions) has strong base (socionics) function.

This is how it appears. I don't know why it is so. I don't know if anybody knows.

All I can say for now is that DCNH should not be learned just theoretically. One should keep observing and learn how it looks like in real life.

I think I'm a fairly typical LII who sometimes looks like their mirror and sometimes like an EII.

Check out videos of the celebrities I listed. It might help if you're interested in subtyping yourself.

Originally Posted by unsuccessfull Alphamale

BTW I also think that ADHD is not psychological problem at all but it can cause those kind of problems especially if environment demands total absense of those traits.

I actually think that Creative subtypes are more likely to be diagnosed as ADHD. In those cases it can be a combination of instability and C subtype. If a Normalizer had the same "instability" it wouldn't necessarily be expressed very much. Just a theory I have...

The DCNH functions and main socionics functions are different things. That's why. As I said the DCNH functions appear more "shallow". This phenomenon goes through all types. The D subtype (Fe,Te DCNH-functions) has strong base (socionics) function.

This is how it appears. I don't know why it is so. I don't know if anybody knows.

All I can say for now is that DCNH should not be learned just theoretically. One should keep observing and learn how it looks like in real life.

I mean, yeah, I get that. Im saying it doesnt make sense. Both systems are describing the same phenomena, and they contradict each other. One or the other is wrong.

Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

After that, it shows the strength of the individual compared to other individuals of the same type they are around on a regular basis.

Types will get booted from their primary element to other elements in group settings when someone else has a stronger version of their primary element. Similarly, in very small groups, each of the 16 types will be accounted for in effect, even with only two people. They'll unconsciously divide up who is going to handle which 8 types in functionality and which will handle the other 8.

dominant subtybe is now under consideration. Still I'm bit too interest driven. I tend to see everywhere new potential blueprints (I can sit down and imagine potentially better way to cook a potato on massive scale) and potential parodies maybe went educationally too far theoretically [pure science, chemistry] and never got around implementing the Spede way (I remember that watched lots of Spede movies with SEI friend as child ) Well, his inventions were mainly useless.

[QUOTE=Tallmo;1193390]Check out videos of the celebrities I listed. It might help if you're interested in subtyping yourself.

I actually think that Creative subtypes are more likely to be diagnosed as ADHD. In those cases it can be a combination of instability and C subtype. If a Normalizer had the same "instability" it wouldn't necessarily be expressed very much. Just a theory I have...

Yes, to get diagnosis for sure.
I have been called kinds of things from ADHD to autism. Incredibly hard to put my mind to present. On Ylilauta image board there's usually some debate wheter Spede (his face is usually present in there) had autism or AD(H)D.

IEE with ADHD is easily noticeable in practical settings.

Last edited by Troll Nr 007; 05-31-2017 at 10:54 PM.

The meaning of LIFE:
To continuously use and develop your own predisposed functionality that makes you content. However:
Societal "ecological niche" generates incompatibilities when we think about individual and his/her meaning. What this means is that life itself can not become fulfilled and in the best cases to approach meaning infinitesimally close tends to happens very seldom. As such we can not reach for fulfillment but we need to become mesmerized by the majority with the majority. Source comes from the illusion generated by the happy outliers. If the individual belongs to one of these groups he/she can be considered as mentally healthy most of the time.Head type as in being truly head type and probably 7>5. Too divergent, scattered and expressive for typical 5 and that is the preferred way although long term focus usually helps.

After that, it shows the strength of the individual compared to other individuals of the same type they are around on a regular basis.

Types will get booted from their primary element to other elements in group settings when someone else has a stronger version of their primary element. Similarly, in very small groups, each of the 16 types will be accounted for in effect, even with only two people. They'll unconsciously divide up who is going to handle which 8 types in functionality and which will handle the other 8.

I think we can ask if it operates on same level as enneagram.

The meaning of LIFE:
To continuously use and develop your own predisposed functionality that makes you content. However:
Societal "ecological niche" generates incompatibilities when we think about individual and his/her meaning. What this means is that life itself can not become fulfilled and in the best cases to approach meaning infinitesimally close tends to happens very seldom. As such we can not reach for fulfillment but we need to become mesmerized by the majority with the majority. Source comes from the illusion generated by the happy outliers. If the individual belongs to one of these groups he/she can be considered as mentally healthy most of the time.Head type as in being truly head type and probably 7>5. Too divergent, scattered and expressive for typical 5 and that is the preferred way although long term focus usually helps.

I mean, yeah, I get that. Im saying it doesnt make sense. Both systems are describing the same phenomena, and they contradict each other. One or the other is wrong.

The thing is that DCNH doesn't have anything to do with socionics. I don't think we should see it as a "subtype theory" but just as theory in itself. That's why the use socionics information elements leads to misunderstandings in my opinion. They are useful to help vaguely picture some features of each DCNH types but other than they are just confusing.
We shouldn't say that Dominant people have Fe and Te strengthened, it doesn't make sense. We should say that Dominant people display behaviors that resemble what the socionics community thinks Fe and Te stereotypically look like.

The thing is that DCNH doesn't have anything to do with socionics. I don't think we should see it as a "subtype theory" but just as theory in itself. That's why the use socionics information elements leads to misunderstandings in my opinion. They are useful to help vaguely picture some features of each DCNH types but other than they are just confusing.
We shouldn't say that Dominant people have Fe and Te strengthened, it doesn't make sense. We should say that Dominant people display behaviors that resemble what the socionics community thinks Fe and Te stereotypically look like.

That's a way of looking at it, but maybe going a little bit too far saying that it doesn't have anything to do with socionics.

One has to remember that:

- Compatibility pattern of functions is the same. (not just in the theory, but in reality)
- DCNH predicts socionics functional emphasis. For example the very noticeable role function use in Normalizers.

- Compatibility pattern of functions is the same. (not just in the theory, but in reality)
- DCNH predicts socionics functional emphasis. For example the very noticeable role function use in Normalizers.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

Originally Posted by Tallmo

- DCNH predicts socionics functional emphasis. For example the very noticeable role function use in Normalizers.

I don't know about that point. It could be true but i'm just not sure. I have examples that could illustrate it but I also have many counter examples.
Every single point of the theory that involves building bridges between DCNH and socionics lacks rigor to me (in terms of Ti I mean). It just doesn't hold together.
I am IEI-D. How could I put more emphasis on Ni than an IEI-N? It's his base function too. Idk...

What I take/accept from DCNH for now is the division of the human population in 4 types and the descriptions of those 4 types, the intertypes (duality/benefaction) and the importance of DCNH balance in order to have a good group dynamic. The rest doesn't pass my Ti Ha test and almost makes me cringe.

It's nice that you share your take on DCNH though. It was really interesting.

Every single point of the theory that involves building bridges between DCNH and socionics lacks rigor to me (in terms of Ti I mean). It just doesn't hold together.

Socionics has duality (Se+Ni and so on)
DCNH also has duality (Se-Creative + Ni-harmonizing and so on)

the pattern is the same.

This indicates that we are talking about a related or emergent phenomenon to Socionics, even though it is not exactly the same

But not only that. The functions seem very related. To me DCNH looks like an "outer" emergent version of the "inner" socionics functions.

How could I put more emphasis on Ni than an IEI-N? It's his base function too. Idk...

My experience is this:

I am N-SEI. In a work environment I have a stronger tendency to snap into "super ego mode". Meaning carrying more inner tension and gravitating towards ILI.
Ni is in my superego block and follows the rules of that. It rises to the foreground in some situations together with the characteristics of that block.

A D-SEI seems to stay more independent being more often in "base mode".

It's nice that you share your take on DCNH though. It was really interesting.

The meaning of LIFE:
To continuously use and develop your own predisposed functionality that makes you content. However:
Societal "ecological niche" generates incompatibilities when we think about individual and his/her meaning. What this means is that life itself can not become fulfilled and in the best cases to approach meaning infinitesimally close tends to happens very seldom. As such we can not reach for fulfillment but we need to become mesmerized by the majority with the majority. Source comes from the illusion generated by the happy outliers. If the individual belongs to one of these groups he/she can be considered as mentally healthy most of the time.Head type as in being truly head type and probably 7>5. Too divergent, scattered and expressive for typical 5 and that is the preferred way although long term focus usually helps.

Explorer (Dopamine) – Creative, curious, adventurous, impulsive, and independent – Explorers are the risk-takers of the personality wheel. Dominated by dopamine, the neurotransmitter that controls rewards and pleasures, Explorers have a high energy level and a profound need for novelty, excitement, and stimulation. According to Fisher, Explorers represent 26 percent of all people. When it comes to love, Explorers are a good match for other Explorers – they need someone who in on the same level of energy and spontaneity.

Builder (Serotonin) – Builders are dominated by serotonin, a neurotransmitter that is associated with sociability and serenity. Calm, cooperative, cautious, and consistent, they make loyal friends and are quite attached to home and family. Builders make up 28.6 percent of the population. They have low levels of anxiety and a high regard for tradition, making them solid citizens who take care of their community and protect its values. Like Explorers, Builders pair best with their own type – other Builders – for romance. Because they value security and commitment, marriages between two builders have a great chance of success.Director (Testosterone) – Fueled by the male sex hormone testosterone, Directors are inventive, independent, and assertive. Their personalities are characterized by competitiveness, decisiveness, and rational analysis. Directors set goals and achieve them, and aren’t afraid to go their own way. Women as well as men can be dominated by testosterone; according to Fisher’s research, 9.7 percent of females are Directors (compared to 24.8 percent of men). Directors make the best love match with Negotiators, whose tenderness will complement their tough-minded nature.Negotiator (Estrogen) – Intuitive, imaginative, and idealistic, Negotiators are dominated by the female sex hormone estrogen. They are introspective, big-picture thinkers who excel in verbal skills, consensus building, and long-term planning. Negotiators shine when it comes to empathy, nurturing, and other social skills. Like Directors, this personality type is not gender-specific; 20.4 percent of men are Negotiators (compared to 35.8 percent of women). Negotiators will have the best luck in love by pairing with Directors, whose decisiveness will complement their ambiguity.

How I see this is that hormones and neurotransmitters might significantly influence type expression.

Of course there is some variation on the levels and there are more or less balanced individuals.
In a way this is a better way to understand DCNH as a separate model from Model A,B,G,...

The meaning of LIFE:
To continuously use and develop your own predisposed functionality that makes you content. However:
Societal "ecological niche" generates incompatibilities when we think about individual and his/her meaning. What this means is that life itself can not become fulfilled and in the best cases to approach meaning infinitesimally close tends to happens very seldom. As such we can not reach for fulfillment but we need to become mesmerized by the majority with the majority. Source comes from the illusion generated by the happy outliers. If the individual belongs to one of these groups he/she can be considered as mentally healthy most of the time.Head type as in being truly head type and probably 7>5. Too divergent, scattered and expressive for typical 5 and that is the preferred way although long term focus usually helps.

How I see this is that hormones and neurotransmitters might significantly influence type expression.

Of course there is some variation on the levels and there are more or less balanced individuals.
In a way this is a better way to understand DCNH as a separate model from Model A,B,G,...

Well it is a bit... If you change something that make you produce more of one than you change personality. Does those chemicals interfere with each other, like if there is much testosteron the body decrease estrogen? Also there is science about the bacteria in your stomach make you crave specific food by hormones that interact with the brain and activate neurotransmitters.

My thoughts on it is that it should be label "group role dynamics" and that it is mainly applied of groups of 2. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak is an example of when first one take the D spot, jobs, and steve took the C spot. When I first read an article about DCNH it was said that the D kinda just is there and than the C is some person writing in the sand. So when only two person one have to be D.

I would even go as far as to say that Gulenko did this theory about duals. The ESE is the D and LII is the C. And if this small group builds on than the other persons going to fill out the N and H spot.

I guess there can be infinite large groups when there is maybe 3 or more D's with different ranks and so on.

My criticism toward the DCNH is that i believe that i been in all positions during my life. Sometimes one in the morning and other in the evening. It lacks long time consistency and is situational.

My thoughts on it is that it should be label "group role dynamics" and that it is mainly applied of groups of 2. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak is an example of when first one take the D spot, jobs, and steve took the C spot. When I first read an article about DCNH it was said that the D kinda just is there and than the C is some person writing in the sand. So when only two person one have to be D.

My criticism toward the DCNH is that i believe that i been in all positions during my life. Sometimes one in the morning and other in the evening. It lacks long time consistency and is situational.

I completely agree. I am pretty sure in some groups I was D, in other groups C, sometimes when I worked in a very big bureucratic company more N.

I still think that above 2 sound like two D/N types in different positions.

subsubtypes D/N-(D/C/N/H)-XYZ if we assume that irrational subtypes are the ones with accentuated irrationality are also the ones who display very different characteristics from other two.

Where you set the cut point is another question.

Just comparing types within same sociotype we must say that there can be drastic differences where most are similar and rest 25 % are exceptions.

If we talk about energy levels then there are innate differences... I don't exactly know what this tries to capture.

The meaning of LIFE:
To continuously use and develop your own predisposed functionality that makes you content. However:
Societal "ecological niche" generates incompatibilities when we think about individual and his/her meaning. What this means is that life itself can not become fulfilled and in the best cases to approach meaning infinitesimally close tends to happens very seldom. As such we can not reach for fulfillment but we need to become mesmerized by the majority with the majority. Source comes from the illusion generated by the happy outliers. If the individual belongs to one of these groups he/she can be considered as mentally healthy most of the time.Head type as in being truly head type and probably 7>5. Too divergent, scattered and expressive for typical 5 and that is the preferred way although long term focus usually helps.

DCNH is not behaviorism. The basis for it is functional. It can show itself in behaviour though, and the correlation is strong. It is only by comparing lots of people that you can see what it is.

It is definitely not situational. If you think that you have misunderstood it totally.

Lets say there is a group of 5. One SLE and a bunch of deltas. The SLE is N and a IEE is D. After a while the 3 other people are changed to a bunch of betas. This might very well change the dynamic of the group and the SLE might end up C and the IEE end up N.

Lets say there is a group of 5. One SLE and a bunch of deltas. The SLE is N and a IEE is D. After a while the 3 other people are changed to a bunch of betas. This might very well change the dynamic of the group and the SLE might end up C and the IEE end up N.

The subtypes are imprinted in the person. It is very difficult to change it. Some behaviour might change temporarily, but then afterwards the person always gravitates back to their default mode of being.

It's always best to stay close to real examples. I had some list famous people in the OP.

Gulenko's characterisation of intertype relationships may be problematic. DCNH is oddly similar to this system of personality traits, which also describes four types:

* Explorer (matches C)

* Builder (matches N)

* Director (matches D)

* Negotiator (matches H)

Unlike DCNH, however:

* Explorers are attracted to other Explorers.

* Builders are attracted to other Builders.

* Directors are attracted to Negotiators and Negotiators are attracted to Directors.

I have been thinking that DCNH must also have been discovered in other fields of psychology, under another name and other concepts. But I think it would be really difficult to do it properly without the knowledge of socionics, because the main type might also interfere with behaviour, causing mistypings.

The recommended compatilities D+N and C+H I consider empirical fact. These combinations are incredibly common and I have personally noticed that the relationship becomes most stable and connection between partners best.

Absolutely, yes!

The more non-type-related stuff you strip out, the more it clarifies a lot of seemingly contradictory observations, DCNH being one of the most powerful such sieves I've come across.

I agree. For myself learning DCNH went hand in hand with learning socionics properly.